ATLANTA (AP)--European airplane maker Airbus (ABI.YY) may have made the world's largest commercial jet, but it won't soon be touching down at Atlanta's airport, the airport's general manager said.

Ben DeCosta said the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport is not approved to land the A380 and that he does not think the market would support the double-decker "superjumbo" jet, which is capable of carrying 500 to 800 passengers.

Also, the airport would need a major overhaul to accommodate the A380, which has a 262-foot wingspan and a tail as tall as a seven-story building.

"It would cost millions," DeCosta said.

[...]

He goes on to talk about taxiways and other things. I found it in the WSJ so I can't provide a link. Sorry.

When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt

Read the whole sad story. He is not even planning for the aircraft, too much money for little reward. Very sad comment from someone whom is in charge of the busiest airport in the world. Never mind there are plenty of other forward thinking airports out there.

"Ben DeCosta said the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport is not approved to land the A380 and that he does not think the market would support the double-decker "superjumbo" jet, which is capable of carrying 500 to 800 passengers."

I take it this gentleman has some marketing research to back this statement up ?? And exactly what market is he talking about ??
Don't the airlines decide on what aircraft to operate,not an airport manager ??

If Boeing builds a larger B747 I guess that won't be able to operate in ATL either ??

The operational problems due to the size makes sense , but the marketing
comments are odd.

This is really messed up (wanted to use a different wors there but the a.net editors may not have liked it). It smacks of protectionism to me, this guy trying to protect Boeing from the competition by not allowing Airbus to fly there.

Well in a few years the A380 is gaining popularity and being used extensively he'll be kicking himself for doing this. And if he isn't kicking himself, I'll kick him!

Exactly what I thought, but I didn't want to start another US vs EU war.
It reminds me terribly the story of the Concorde.
But this time, the project can survive without a full free entrance in the US (hopefully).

"Well in a few years the A380 is gaining popularity and being used extensively he'll be kicking himself for doing this. And if he isn't kicking himself, I'll kick him!
"

Seems to me like he's making a reasonable business decision, why should the taxpayers of Atlanta subsidize improvements that have no current or mid-term foreseeable use? They can always make the improvements if and when the market conditions make them necessary.

Isn't Atlanta one of the most congested airport in the world ?
Considering the traffic, "it would cost millions" is probably not very convincing.

Absolutely ATL is highly congested, but your line of thinking still doesn't work. ATL is pretty much maxed out as it stands today. The A380 will actually make things far worse. The main reason is that the taxi-way and ground side facilities limitation severely limit which portions of the airfield it has access to. Therefore, you either have to move a whole lot of other traffic or make the A380 wait until the other traffic moves on its own accord (The A380 would be the one who waited).

Further, there are only a few routes out of Atlanta that could possibly support an A380. This may change in the far future, but for the foreseeable future it won't. Three that come to mind are ATL-MCO, ATL-LGW, and ATL-CDG. The problem is in most cases the reduction in frequency that would be required would actually significantly shrink the market. Furthermore, the 5 or 6 A380s that would fill the market would not significantly effect the ability of the airport to handle more traffic. If you want to know just look at the distributions of aircraft in and out of ATL.

Seems to me like he's making a reasonable business decision, why should the taxpayers of Atlanta subsidize improvements that have no current or mid-term foreseeable use? They can always make the improvements if and when the market conditions make them necessary.

This would be sensible except for the fact that Atlanta taxpayers don't directly support the airport. The airport is actually an operating profit entity. Capital improvements are finance through user fees and Federal $, which incidentally are payed out of the aviation trust fund, which is also supported by user fees and taxes.

Why exactly is it childish? Why spend millions for something that has no current or forseeable use.

How is this at all comparable to Concorde? The opposition to the Concorde was primarily by environmentalists on the grounds of noise polution, etc. It had nothing to do with the cost of airport improvements/modifications to accommodate its size.

ATL might be congested and the busiest airport in the world, but most of this heavy traffic is domestic with a sprinkling of international flights. And those few international flights by AF, DL, BA, LH are not even 747 traffic, they are point to point 777/A340 capacity. ATL is a second tier US destination for Euro majors, much like DTW, BWI or DFW, and i doubt if ever LH or AF will send A380's there. LAX, JFK, ORD, MIA and SFO are A380 destinations.

ATL would probably see 1 or 2 at most A380 a day... why should they bounty up the millions for upgrades or renovations for that? I'm sure the ATL Authority would rather see 2 744/340 than 1 A380. What's the likelyhood that any of the airlines out of ATL will order the 380? DL would get the 787.. FL would get the 787.. neither would get the 380 cause they don't do high quantity/low frequency routes.. if the quantity increases, the frequencies increases.. that is the way the US air carriers do it...

Talking about places that might see the A-380, is JFK, LAX, SFO, ORD and MIA ready to handle the monster, or do they need upgrades???
As for JFK, if U think the amount of 747´s that go there daily I think they can easily handle the 380, don´t know about runways etc.

And other places, like LHR, CDG, FRA, HKG, SYD are those places ready for the A-380???

AS for Brazil, TAM already stated that hardly any airport here could handle the thing, not without upgrades in GRU and GIG.